Abstract:The main problem of quality assurance on knowledge claims lies in the entanglement of normative (value-driven moral stands) and descriptive (narratives about causality) dimensions at different organisational levels of decision-making. Individuals must choose among contrasting legitimate narratives about "the right thing to do" while facing uncertainty about the outcome of their choice. The scientific community faces exactly the same predicament, but without being able to legitimately choose among contrasting value-driven moral stands. At the societal level, existing institutional settings are incapable of guaranteeing the quality of collective choices. Three types of quality control are needed for the proper production and use of knowledge claims for governance: on the usefulness of the chosen problem structuring (relevance); on the pertinence of the scientific representation (plausibility); on the effectiveness of the validation process (fairness). These quality checks are required to legitimise the decision-making process, thus transcending the traditional duality between passion and reason.

Online publication date: Fri, 23-Oct-2015

is only available to individual subscribers or to users at subscribing institutions.

Want to subscribe?A subscription gives you complete access to all articles in the current issue, as well as to all articles in the previous three years (where applicable).
See our Orders page to subscribe.